house to the same sacred appropriation, (Acta Sanc-
torum, tom. iv. p. 299); as no end can well be imagined
for fiction in these representations, they at least argue
the prevalence of such a custom amongst Christians,
at the time to which they relate.* Ecumenius may
be cited as an authority of a subsequent age; and
though he is one of those Fathers who explain
the salutation, in the case of Aquila and Priscilla,
as referring to their household; yet this is his
second sense submitted as an alternative to his
readers, if not disposed to adopt the other to
which he gives precedence,† and which he repeats
without an alternative when the salutation of Nymphas
comes under his interpretation. But the theologian
who has gone into the point with the profoundest
research, is Mede, of whose labours much use has been
made in the present investigation. He does not, how-
ever, stand alone; for he is followed by the learned
Cave, in his Primitive Christianity, who, remarking
upon the salutations in question, says,
"that they seem
clearly to intimate not so much the particular persons
of any private family living together under the same
bond of Christian discipline, as that in such and such
a house, (and more especially in this or that room of it,)
there was the solemn convention of the Christians of
that place for their joint celebration of divine worship."
(Part I. ch. vi. p. 128.) By Vitringa, who having

It is to the purpose to observe, that Eusebius speaks of the Churches, rebuilt upon a larger scale, in the reign of Diocletian, as "NAAAIA oikodoμhμaтa."-Hist. lib. viii. cap. 1.

† “ Καὶ τὴν κατ ̓ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν.” Οὕτως δὲ ἦσαν εὐδόκιμοι ὅτι καὶ τὸν οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίαν ἐποίησαν. ἢ ὅτι πανοικὶ ἦσαν πιστοὶ, ὡς Tòv olkov Xoinòv ékkλnoíav elvai.-Ecumenii Opera, Par. 1631. tom. i. p. 408.

* * Καὶ Νυμφᾶν” Μέγας ὁ ἀνήρ. τὴν γὰρ οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ, ἐκκλησίαν TETоlηKEY.-Ibid. tom. ii. p. 146.

66 non

adduced evidence to shew "quod pars ædium privati ecclesiæ membri aliquando apud Judæos in Synagogam consecretur," very naturally has his attention called to the adoption of this religious usage hinted at in the apostolic salutations, and exploding the opinion of those "qui existimant per ecclesiam intelligi tantum familiam domesticam numerosiorem," proceeds, video tamen, quid obstet, quo minus per ecclesiam, intelligantur fideles, qui ad ædes membri ecclesiæ Imo certum est nobilioris soliti erant congregari. illam explicationem maxime satisfacere significationi receptæ vocis ékkλnoía." De Synagoga, Lib. i. Pars i. cap. 14. pp. 257-8.) By Parker in his Bibliotheca Biblica (a Commentary upon the Pentateuch of great value,) who, having assigned to "the urea among the primitive Christians, a Jewish, or rather Patriarchal original," remarks upon them, that they seem to have occasioned the form of apostolical salutation in their Epistles to the Church in such a house." (Vol. V. p. 376.) By Dr. Wall, in his Critical Notes, who upon the salutation of Philemon, says distinctly, that "there was a church of Christians at his house." (Vol. III. p. 296.) By Wolfius, who, surveying the authorities on both sides, very decidedly favours Mede and his associates. By Dr. Wells, who, having in the two first instances adopted solely Whitby's interpretation, appends a note to 1 Cor. xvi. 19, referring his reader with approval to the learned Mr. Mede, and adopts both in the two following places. By Burkit, who gives both interpretations; but having in the two first instances assigned the precedence to that of Whitby, in the two last changes its place, and concluding his comment with the reflection" Charity moved to give more than force of law can compel and constrain,"

illustrates it by the alleged fact, that " Nymphas gives his house to be a place of public worship to the Church;" and refers his reader to "the learned Mr. Mede" for further information. And lastly, by Hardy, whose transition is remarkable; for, upon Rom. xvi. 5, his note is, "i. e. familiam eorum Christianam;" upon 1 Cor. xvi. 19, "i. e. Tota familia sua quæ est Christiana; vel ecclesia quæ ipsorum domo congregari solet." Upon Col. iv. 15, “i.e. Familiam Christianam, vel cœtum fidelium ad sacra officia peragenda in domo ejus convenire solitum ;" and upon Philem. 2. “i.e. Cœtui Christianorum qui in ejus domo convenire solet." He sets out a follower of the commentators in ordinary useis shaken in his judgment upon reconsideration of the passage-wavers still more upon the next review, and as his ὕστεραι φροντίδες drops altogether his original interpretation, and adopts that which the unforced rendering of the words decidedly favours.

This rendering, 1 Cor. xi. 22 greatly contributes to confirm; for the context clearly proves, that the place is here in the Apostle's contemplation, and not the persons congregated in it, "from the opposition which he makes between the Church and the private houses of the Corinthians." So thought Grotius; for his note upon the passage is, "Respicitur locus qui est Levit. xix. 30. Sanctuarium meum reverimini." So also thought Selden; for his remark upon it is, "Ecclesia ibi plane locum solennis conventus denotat, ut a patribus aliquot et recentioribus doctis est adnotatum." (De Syned. fol. lib. iii. cap. xv. sect. 2, p. 1798.) But the most important authority is that of the celebrated Nicholas Fuller, a divine of the sixteenth century, extremely learned in the sacred tongues, and according to Wood, " surpassing, in the elucidation

of Scripture diffies, all the critics of his time."
- Beclesias
His dissertation on the text, intitled,
h. e. Templa Christianorum, Apostolicis temporibus
fuisse ædificatas," will be found in the Critici Sacri,
Vol. VIII. Part II. p. 938. Mede pursues his in-
quiries concerning churches through the second and
third centuries; and they are well deserving the atten-
tion of the inquirer after truth in this particular.

No. III.

As the term " abominations" would be justly offensive if indefinitely applied, and without sufficient warrant for so opprobrious a designation, it was intended to vindicate the use of it in this Appendix, by a series of illustrations. These relate to tentpreaching, the camp-meetings of the Ranters, and the religious aquatic excursions of various confraternities in steam-vessels to the Nore. But the mere naming of the orgies pointed at is sufficient; and upon reconsidering the admission of the documents referred to, it appears to the Author that the place would be dishonoured by the disgusting details. That which constituted the great provocation of the Heathen, as God himself sets it forth (Deut. xii. 31), is, that “every abomination which the Lord hateth have they done unto their gods." The case before us, in the two latter instances, is more aggravated; for here what is profanely called His own worship has been mixed up with the most detestable abominations.

R. CLAY, PRINTER, DEVONSHIRE STREET, BISHOPSGATE.